National Middle Schools’ Forum
Middle Schools Reconsidered
Challenging misconceptions or myths
about middle school systems
Nigel Wyatt
October 2012
Misconceptions or myths about middle school systems
Plans to reorganise middle school systems have been supported by a number
educational arguments that often obscure the real motivations of those proposing
change.
The purpose of this paper is to challenge some of the myths about middle school
systems that have become common place in some of the debates surrounding
consultations over reorganisation. Through frequent repetition these myths have
become common currency. In this paper we will examine current evidence that
challenges these assumptions.
Among these are the following assertions:
1) That middle schools and three tier systems cannot be successful
2) That middle school pupils do not achieve well at the end of KS2.
3) That two points of transfer in three tier systems mean lower outcomes for
pupils
4) That reorganisation will lead to higher standards.
5) That parents find middle schools confusing
Examining these issues will provide an opportunity to reconsider the merits and
advantages that middle school systems have to offer.
2
1) That middle schools and three tier systems cannot be successful
There has been an attempt to portray middle schools systems as somehow inherently
deficient in such a way that they cannot deliver the best outcomes for their pupils.
This is completely unfounded.
i) Evidence from successful three their systems
There are a number of very successful and high performing three tier pyramids in the
country that are popular with parents and delivering good outcomes for their pupils.
To take three examples:
The percentage of pupils getting
grades A*-C in five GCSE
qualifications only, including
maths and English GCSE
The average number of points
netted per pupil at the institution
taking AS/A-level or equivalent
qualifications
66%
847.1
The Thomas Hardye School
Dorchester Pyramid, Dorset
72%
833.9
Shelley College
Shelley Pyramid, Kirklees
71%
938.4
Sharnbrook Upper School
Sharnbrook Pyramid outside
Bedford
Indeed within Suffolk, County Upper School in Bury St Edmunds was among the top
five maintained secondary schools in the 2011 secondary results tables, and was
judged by Ofsted to be outstanding when last inspected.
There is nothing inherent in the structure of three tier systems that means that they
cannot be successful.
ii) Outcomes of Ofsted Inspections
Ofsted provides the most rigorous system for judging the effectiveness and quality of
education provided in our schools and it has consistently judged a proportion of
middle schools to be good and outstanding.
Monitoring of the outcomes of inspections shows that the proportion of middle
schools being judged to be good and outstanding is in line with, or slightly above, the
proportion achieving these categories for all schools.
3
So, to take a typical year, in the academic year 2009 to 2010 the proportion of middle
schools judged to be good and outstanding by Ofsted was slightly above that for all
the schools inspected in that year:
Middle school data – September 2009 to July 2010
All schools
All middle schools
Outstanding
11%
12% (8)
Percentage
Good
Satisfactory
42%
38%
46% (31)
41% (28)
Inadequate
9%
1% (1)
Ofsted teams regularly judge that middle schools, together with first and upper
schools, provide good and outstanding quality of education for their pupils.
4
2) That middle school pupil do not achieve well at the end of KS2.
i) The results of Key Stage 2 assessments
It is frequently asserted that middle schools do not perform as well as two tier schools
at the end of KS2 assessments. The results from three middle school areas in the table
below show that in each case the middle schools achieve at or above the level of the
results for all schools within their local authority area.
KS2 2011 - Percentage of pupils achieve Level 4 and above in English and Maths
All schools in
the LA
74%
Middle schools
only
74%
Somerset
74%
75%
Suffolk*
69%
72%
NATIONAL
74%
Dorset
*includes the results of the remaining middle schools in Bury St Edmunds, Stowmarket and
Stowupland areas.
The figures come from three Local Authority areas with a substantial minority of
middle schools where such comparisons would be meaningful.
ii) Ofsted inspectors do not judge the effectiveness of middle schools on the basis of
the results in Year 6 alone.
Judging the effectiveness of a middle school by the results in Year 6, half way
through its planned course of education, is like trying to judge the quality of a cake
when it has been mixed – but has not yet been cooked. Imagine carefully weighing
and mixing all the ingredients for a chocolate cake, and taking this mixture to the
village show to be judged in the cake making competition. A fair judgement of the
finished cake is of course impossible.
Ofsted have accepted that middle schools should be judged on the progress of pupils
between the age of entry and the end of the final year – and that while Key Stage 2
data will be considered, it should not be given undue prominence – it cannot show the
full story of the progress achieved over the full four years in the school.
SUBSIDIARY GUIDANCE JANUARY 2012 - Middle schools
35. Key Stage 1 assessment results may not provide an accurate picture of pupils’
attainment on entry to a middle school because this will depend on the progress they
have made in the intervening years. It is important, therefore, that inspectors
carefully examine any data provided by the middle school about the attainment of its
pupils on entry. The rigour and accuracy of the school’s assessment procedures and
the efforts made to moderate them will be an important contributory factor to
inspectors’ views about attainment on entry.
5
36. Inspectors will need to adopt a similar approach to considering pupils’ attainment
when they leave the middle school. This is important as it will help to determine
whether attainment is sufficiently high and may contribute to the evidence on how
much progress pupils have made. Again, Key Stage 2 test results may not
reflect pupils’ attainment when they leave the middle school.
This is made clear in the new Inspection Framework that came into effect in
September 2012:
Inspection Framework - September 2012
107. Inspectors should also note the following:
- in school settings where attainment is not benchmarked nationally, for example in
the final year group of a middle school, inspectors should draw on all the available
evidence to decide whether attainment is above average, broadly average or low
iii) Progress by end of Year 8
In fact the evidence suggests that pupils in middle schools make greater progress
during KS3 than pupils in any other type of schooling, even though it includes the
transition from middle to upper school in Year 9.
Recently compiled data on the achievement of about 6,000 pupils leaving Year 8 in
middle school in 2011 shows that these pupils are already achieving at a level above
that achieved nationally at the end of Year 9 in other schools - shown in the last of the
nationally set KS3 SATs in 2007.
Comparison of Year 8 results from 2011 with the last national SATS for Year 9
Average points score per pupil
English
Maths
Science
National Year 9 SATS 2007
33.5
36.7
34.3
All middle deemed secondary
2011
34.3
36.8
36.1
Source for National data: http://www.education.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SFR/s000776/sfr06-2008.pdf
National Ave Point Score =APS for all maintained schools Year 9 KS3 in 2007
Many middle schools were involved in the pilot of the two year Key Stage 3 and
continue to teach the Key Stage 3 programme over the final two years of middle
school, taking advantage of the opportunity to build on Key Stage 2 without the
regressive effect of transfer at age eleven.
6
These results from Year 8 in 2011 confirm the continuing relevance of a study by
Professor David Jesson, of York University, in 1999 which compared the
achievements of pupils who transfer between schools at different ages. It showed that
pupils from middle schools consistently made better average progress between Key
Stage 2 and Key Stage 3 at the end of Year 9, as the following table shows:
Table showing average progress from KS2 to KS3 by type of school in levels:
Levels progress
Junior
Infant/Junior
8-12 middle
9-13 middle
English
1.45
1.41
1.42
1.43
Maths
1.47
1.44
1.54
1.58
Science
1.21
1.18
1.23
1.32
(Source: Performance and Progress of pupils in Secondary Schools of Differing Types.
Professor David Jesson, University of York, 1999)
7
3) That two points of transfer in three tier systems mean lower
outcomes for pupils
i) Evidence of dip in progress when transfer is at age 11.
The suggestion that there is evidence of lowered achievement at the end of Key Stage
2 would be more telling if it was not for the considerable evidence of regression in
development on transfer from primary to secondary school at age 11. This reversal of
progress in two tier systems is well documented and it has been termed a national
scandal by Ofsted and by successive education secretaries.
“Continuity in the curriculum and progression in learning as pupils move from
primary to secondary schools are long standing weaknesses of the education
system.” – (Changing Schools, HMI 2002 p.2)
Work by Professor Maurice Galton of Cambridge University suggests that:
… around half the pupils in English and Science (49% and 49% respectively)
made no gain in their level score one year after moving from primary to
secondary school. For mathematics, however, the corresponding figure was
33%. … the relatively high proportion of the sample failing to make progress
suggest that transfer to secondary school is still associated with subsequent
underperformance in the case of certain pupils.
(Transfer and Transitions in the Middle Years of Schooling (7-14):
Continuities and Discontinuities in Learning, Maurice Galton, John Gray and
Jean Ruddock, 2003, p. 58)
8
ii) Evidence that transfers in three tier systems are better managed
There has been an assumption that transfers at age 9 and 13 must lead to similar
regression in progress.
There is less research on the effects of transfer in three tier systems. However as the
paper on transfer written by Maurice Galton for Suffolk’s own reorganisation research
points out:
“…the evidence supports the view that delaying the move from the elementary
school helps to reduce dips in transfer. There is less of a case for arguing that
the dips are cumulative so that pupils attending a three-tier system of
schooling are permanently disadvantaged” (Suffolk County Council, School
Organisation Review, 2006 p. 45).
What evidence there is, then, points to the fact that in middle schools systems the
transfer is better managed and is more in line with what we know about child
development. As the Cambridge Primary Review research points out, middle school
systems ... avoided the developmental double whammy of school transfer coinciding
with the onset of puberty.
(Community Soundings: the Primary Review regional witness sessions,
Cambridge Primary Review, 200, Page 38)
iii) Why two points of transfer might offer advantages
The advantage of a system with two points of transfer is that it results in schools
which are better able to focus on the needs of children at different stages of their
education.
The change of school at age 11 came about by historical accident, and has resulted in
schools catering for a wide span of ages. The introduction of middle school systems
was, in part, an attempt to introduce a form of schooling better matched to the
developmental needs of children. One where schools catered for about four age
groups, and so were not over large and one where schools could be developed that
were better focused on the needs of pupils at each stage of their education.
9
4) That reorganisation will lead to higher standards
i) Systems in place to support failing schools
All local authorities have systems in place to support weak or failing schools. So in
Essex, say, the authority will have a series of steps and interventions in place to help
turn a failing school round. Where there are weak or failing schools in three tier
systems this is the approach that should be adopted.
It makes little or no sense to close good and successful schools under the guise of
seeking to raise standards.
ii) Looking closely at the argument that reorganisation raises standards
Let us consider the logical form of the argument underpinning the assumption that
reorganisation is required in order to raise standards in three tier areas. We can
represent it in the familiar form of the following syllogism:
Premise one: This middle school is underperforming
Premise two: Reorganisation is required to raise standards
Conclusion: This middle should be reorganised to raise standards.
Substituting the word ‘middle’ with ‘primary’, ‘secondary’ or any other type of
school reveals how inconsistently this argument is being applied. If premise two is
true then it should be applied consistently to other forms of schooling -but it is not.
Middle schools are being singled out here, and treated inconsistently.
iii) Evidence that reorganisation raises standards
There is no reliable evidence that reorganisation raises standards from experience
around the country. In some areas already rising standards of achievement have
continued.
In others reorganisation has led to difficulties. For example in Wiltshire
reorganisation led to two first schools going into special measures shortly after
attaining primary school status. In Oxford the rising results in a middle school coming
out of special measures during the period of reorganisation masked falling results
elsewhere, while at Peers School in Oxford the reorganisation was a major factor in
its later difficulties:
When Oxford's middle-school system was abandoned in 2003, Peers faced the
upheaval of reverting to an 11-18 school. It was one whammy too many.
Chris Dark, who succeeded Clarke in 1998, recalls how nearly 700 children
joined the school in three days, of whom nearly a third had acute levels of
need. The school's approach had been based on giving autonomy and
10
responsibility to an older age group, and it wasn't prepared for the challenge of
dealing with less mature pupils. In his moving and honest contribution to
Roberts's book, Dark says: "For me, at that time, the demands outstripped the
capability and I have not felt at ease about it since."
(And so farewell, to a school that was once the future, Guardian, 24th
June 2008 and Peers School: A Comprehensive With a Difference,
1968-2008, by Martin Roberts)
What needs to be considered carefully is the harm done to three tier systems through
the blight cast by the threat of reorganisation proposals, often over long periods of
time, preventing development and making it difficult to recruit and retain high quality
staff.
11
5) Parents find middle schools confusing
It has sometimes been claimed that middle school systems are confusing for parents
and that when parents move to a middle school area they will not understand them.
i) The education system is becoming more, not less, diverse
The assumption that underpins these statements is that middle schools are an
aberration in an otherwise uniform education system in England. In a system in which
there are more middle schools than grammar schools, to pick just one obvious
comparison, this assumption is clearly unfounded. The truth is that we are in a period
when government policy is leading to the development of an increasingly diverse
education system with the development of all through schools, academy chains and
free schools. The ability of a Local Authority’s to plan for school places is breaking
down in the face of changes which are beyond their control.
ii) Parents clearly articulate the advantages of three tier education
The evidence gathered by the Cambridge Primary Review demonstrated that parents
have a very clear understanding of the advantages of the middle schools systems:
“Interestingly, parents in a number of other soundings commended a return to
the middle school system to reduce the trauma of primary–secondary transfer
and segregate younger children from the influence of teenagers. Contemporary
anxieties are in this case prompting a desire to reinstate a pattern of schooling
with which an earlier generation had decided to dispense. The middle schools
may have disappeared but the anxieties have not, and for this reason we
suggest that the issue is of much more than local interest.” Cambridge
Primary Review - Community Soundings, 2007
These views, expressed so clearly by parents, inform some of the important
recommendations of the final report:
No 94. Like the class teacher system and the structure of the school year, the
ages and stages of primary education have historical provenance rather than,
necessarily, contemporary currency. The old infant/junior structure persists
largely unchallenged, but the more recent experiment in 8–12 and 9–13
middle schools seems already to be in terminal decline. However, we heard
strong arguments in favour of the latter arrangement from teachers, and
from parents who were worried about their children growing up too soon.
(Cambridge Primary Review, Page 501
No 107. Local authorities responsible for England’s remaining first and
middle schools should not lightly dismiss the case for their retention based
on the developmental benefits for their pupils.
(Cambridge Primary Review, Page 503)
12
The real story behind the rise and fall of middle schools
The rise and fall of middle schools nationally has little to do with educational
arguments about the merits of the system. The real story, rather, is revealed in this
graph showing the number of middle schools in the country since 1970. The curve
matches the rise and fall in the size of the school population over this period
demonstrated in the graph below.
Number of middle schools by type since 1969
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
Deemed primary
Deemed Secondary
Full time equivalent pupils by type of school 1970 to 2010
(Source: DfE statistical release NATIONAL PUPIL PROJECTIONS: OSR 15/2010)
13
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
1989
1988
1987
1986
1985
1984
1983
1982
1981
1980
1979
1978
1977
1976
1975
1974
1973
1972
1971
1970
1969
0
The rapid expansion and then slow decline in the number of middle schools has been
driven by economic forces.
These forces have not been affecting middle schools alone. There has been a
corresponding decline in the number of primary schools, from 18,500 in 1996 to
16,800 in 2011. (1700 primary schools have closed over this period, a fall of 9%).
After a period of declining pupil numbers, however, we are now at the start of a rapid
expansion in the school population, reminiscent of the early 1970s which gave birth to
middle schools. Between the school year 2010/11 and 2014 primary pupil numbers
will grow by 400,000 or 12%.
In the 1970s middle schools were introduced in part to cater for the rapid rise in pupil
numbers and increase in the school leaving age, together with the introduction of
comprehensive education. They have declined as the number of pupils has declined,
as local authorities were pressed to remove surplus places from their systems.
In each local authority area the prime motivation for reorganisation has been
financial, although this has been carefully presented with a clothing of educational
arguments.
14
A system fit for the 21st Century
There are many examples of successful primary and secondary schools around the
country. So what is the distinctive contribution that a successful middle school system
can offer?
This paper has made reference to a number of these features in the discussion above –
to summarise:
i) A system better suited to child development
As we have seen above in the discussion of transfer, the middle school system
provides for schools which span over 4 or 5 age groups - schools which are better able
to focus on the needs of children at their different stages of development. The system
avoids the problems associated with transfer at age 11 when children are at their most
vulnerable through changes associated with puberty.
This is not a small point. Upper Schools within three tier systems, for example, are
institutions with a more adult climate and ethos, one appropriate to the delivery of the
14 to 19 curriculum. First schools can create the nurturing environment appropriate to
the needs of young children, while middle schools are able to offer wider
opportunities to pupils from the age of 9.
ii) Access to specialist teaching
The Cambridge Primary Review echoes other research in identifying the role of the
general class teacher as a weakness in the present primary school system for older
pupils.
The model of the generalist teacher in primary schools has been in place since
the 19th century when it was introduced to cut costs. This system should now
be revised with the introduction of more specialist teachers, some of whom
could be shared between schools. It acknowledges that this would be
expensive. (Cambridge Primary Review Booklet, page 36)
The report argues that this generalist teaching role is no longer sufficient and that the
subject knowledge of primary teachers is one of the often cited weaknesses of primary
schools in Ofsted reports. The report concludes:
Recommendation no 128 …a fully generalist approach may be maintained for
the early primary years with a generalist/specialist mixture in upper primary.
(Cambridge Primary Review, Page 506)
If you have once seen children aged 9 and 10 working with specialist technology
teachers in a workshop, or seen them training with specialist PE teachers, you see that
they are ready for wider experiences than a single teacher can offer.
15